Cultivating "Organic Growth"

The economy, simply, must be organized for "organic growth" that is clearly identified with expansion of the pie (the proliferation of firms and dissipation of risk, not the consolidation of firms with proliferation of risk and dissipation of industry and markets).

Expansion is clearly verified with employment. It does not rely on the abstruse quanta-phenomenologies of an elite regulatory authority. By the same measure, simply organizing for "organic growth" will not be indicated by consolidation of firms (the merger and acquisition activity that precedes economic recovery) and continued economic contraction verified with unemployment.

Expanding the pie is supposed to expand the market in which to be shared, literally increasing the number of "shares" in the market to demand the increased supply. The result is growth without inflation and/or unemployment instead of the crisis of overproduction.

Overproduction is demand reduction that results from over-accumulation of the capital, or liquidity crisis. The crisis is easily, simply, resolved by not allowing industry and markets to consolidate with a false economy-of-scale efficiency argument.

It is a critical error to reform financial markets, for example, without deconsolidation of firms too big to fail. The tendency of reform is to eliminate the "failure" component and retain the "too big" component. That is a "big" mistake!

Resolving the financial sector to prevent crises requires deconsolidation. The sentiment expressed by interests close to the reform is that predicting and preventing crises is not possible, indicating that the critical size factor will not be resolved. The capital will then continue to over-accumulate, along with the errors. The result is easily predictable--crises of overproduction; and if it is easily predictable, it is just as easily, simply, preventable.

Mired in technical complexity, the critical, causal factor will be conserved through public process. The critical errors will be maintained as best practices best determined by the private sector which is, of course, being too big to fail. If, however, the only reform is to allow for failure without the resolve of a deconsolidated free-market, all that is left is the unresolved risk (what cultivating a free marketplace dissipates, or resolves, in priority). The accumulation of errors will present as catastrophic liquidity crisis and the need to prevent it in posteriority.

Maintaining the status quo by allowing the possibility of failure is not real reform. It allows for the business cycle to operate according to the classical model of capitalism which, by empirical trial, is an ontology for the consolidation of wealth and power into the very highest degree of crisis proportion. The empirical back test on this macro dynamic fully indicates that "too big to fail" will continue as the best organizational practice. Valuations will reflect the organizational practice.

Defining "organic growth" defines the problem to be solved or, in the case of financials, "resolved."

Resolution authority, which is suggested to be the primary means of financial regulation, does not suggest a free-market ontology, but an authoritarian regime that affirms the legitimacy of an elitist practical model, not pluralism.

If we want to cultivate "organic growth" of our economy, rather than firms that are too big to fail, we must switch to a pluralist model.

No change at all is certainly not the change we need if we want to expand the pie.

The Tobin Tax

Discussion of the Tobin tax gets little discussion in U.S. pop media because, first of all, pop media outlets are controlled by a consolidated capital which proponents of the tax argue needs to be controlled.

The tax has a progressive, proportional quality because it is targeted at high finance. However, the tax also has a regressive quality because many income classes do engage in the transactions the Tobin levy proposes to tax in order to control the perils of speculative demand (the classic peril of causing liquidity crises and a deflationary trend that consolidates the capital and benefits the primary "class" of the tax's target--those who largely own the capital and apply the peril/benefit).

The tax will not solve the cause of the problem. The income necessary to demand the markets remains consolidated to command it. It is just another Keynesian-like symptomatic treatment. The revenue will be used to fund the welfare state, empowering the bureaucratic model and the elitist technocrats that run it for the power elite in the name of democracy.

The income policy necessary to actually solve the problem of algorythmic, recurrent liquidity crisis is a purely progressive tax: the higher the income, whatever the source, the higher the tax. The retributed revenue puts the "demand" back in the market quickly and easily, defeating the classic benefit of the deflationary trend to keep the capital, and power, consolidated.

The Tobin tax will be falsely sold as a progressive tax measure to falsely satisfy the need, the demand, for that measure. The tax is only "progressive" because it conforms to policies and programs of the progressive era of politics.

The progressive era represents the emergence of a new middle class of elits that aspire to the ruling class, legislating all manner of limits to liberty and raising huge tax revenues that supports their sense of an upper-class status. This cohort largely disguises themselves as "liberals."

The liberal description of progressivism is false. It is an endeavor to tyrannize society with the always-better-judgement of elite authority. It is a tendency that is inimical to a free and civil society and gives credence to the consolidation of wealth and power. It is the problem, not the solution.

No Demand for the Moral Imperative

Forty-six million Americans are currently without health care insurance. They do not have the income to demand it, yet the cost continues to rise in a deflationary trend. Just exactly how is that?

The SCHIP, for example, provided funds for price increases. It pulls up the cost without providing the income necessary to demand the cost come down. Rather, the tax funding provides for unconditional payment of the price; that is, without any demands. The income that is being provided is to command the price up, and that distribution deprives the income necessary to demand the price come down.

A market demand of 46 million is surely enough to demand the price come down if they have the income to demand it. Government providing the income by tax and subsidy does not, very clearly, demand the cost control needed to reform the system.

Paying the price on command is being masqueraded as a moral imperative.

Every American deserves health care, and every American deserves the income necessary to demand it at a an affordable price determined by the logic of collective action in a free and unconsolidated, competitive marketplace.

Ensuring a free-market mechanism in priority includes the pricing and organized practices of health care professionals and the AMA, as well as insurers. That will be the reform that both controls costs and satisfies the moral imperative.

Income and Capital Formation: Paying for Healthcare

The call for healthcare reform is a call for choice and affordability, and the objection to the proposed reform is the lack of it.

Americans are not clueless. Once healthcare is in the sector of public authority, where choice is "subjected" to the force and legitimacy of that authority, the supremacy of choice (democracy) is subordinated.

Voting with dollars in the marketplace is a direct and immediate democracy with direct and immediate authority that is directly and immediately verifiable. The choice is not "subjected" but objectively applied to fit the liberal taste and preferences of the individual. That is called freedom. That's why we want it!

The proposed consolidation to make healthcare universally accessible because it is fundamental to human existence is in fact a declaration that liberty and freedom must be diminished to attain the greatest good.

Soundly rejected!

The consumer knows that public sector consolidation of the system is as much to conserve the accumulation of wealth that makes healthcare unaffordable as to universally provide it.

Whether public, private, or public and private, organized consolidation rigs the price and concentrates income, which is argued to be the efficiency of capital formation for investment.

Does the cure for rising costs have to be the formation of concentrated capital (demand reduction)? We certainly have plenty of that (recession).

Controlling costs is a demand-side factor as well as a supply-side factor.

Cost control also comes in the form of ensuring adequate distribution of income (dollar votes) in order to demand it.

Public policy is needed that ensures adequacy of income to participate in the marketplace, not a system that ensures an accumulation of that income in the name of an efficient capital formation.

Consolidation of wealth and power is not a necessary condition for provision of the public good.

The current administration and congress seems to prefer, however, ensuring financial adequacy from the top down, a system that has failed "We The People," preventing the full and stable operation of democratic economic means, for over 200 years.

Conservatives argue that ensuring consolidation of wealth and power (low-to-no taxation for the wealthy--the regressive tax burden of the Hamiltonian model) is the stability we all want and need.

Is it?

If a lack of income prices Americans out of the healthcare market, how does ensuring the lack of income price them in?

The income that has been accumulated needs to be distributed to allow for participation in the marketplace. That will provide the demand that not only pushes the price up, but can be applied to "demand" the price come down.

Where healthcare does not rely on public finance in which the industry is paid whatever price it commands, consumers are more able to demand what is considered a fair price if they have the dollar votes to demand it.

In order for the healthcare industry to increase its income, it will be necessary to lower the price and allow for maximum participation (completely different from the budget-busting public option of assuring the highest participation at the highest possible price).

Even in the case of a life-saving medical procedure (a relatively inelastic demand), being held hostage to the price is a function of spreading the risk which, again, is mitigated by exposure to the ability to demand affordable insurance premiums to spread that risk.

A lower price increases income. Increased income increases the capacity to participate, and the need for more providers (employment and a share of the income), which spreads the risk to demand an affordable price (on a limited supply of available funds) rather than just paying what a limited number of providers command (on an unlimited supply of public funds).

A budget deficit to finance whatever the provider commands concentrates an accumulation of wealth. The redistribution of income reduces the amount of money available to spread the risk and demand the price without progressive taxation.

We are being told the free-market model of "demand" economics is impossible. It is a rhetoric applied to rig the price--to command the price rather than demand it.

What is impossible is to continue allowing for an overaccumulation of income if we want a healthy economy, and affordable healthcare.